Abstract

References (63)

Citations (1)

Using the URL or DOI link below will
ensure access to this page indefinitely

Based on your IP address, your paper is being delivered by:

New York, USA

Processing request.

Illinois, USA

Processing request.

Brussels, Belgium

Processing request.

Seoul, Korea

Processing request.

California, USA

Processing request.

If you have any problems downloading this paper,please click on another Download Location above, or view our FAQFile name: SSRN-id1938519. ; Size: 389K

You will receive a perfect bound, 8.5 x 11 inch, black and white printed copy of this PDF document with a glossy color cover. Currently shipping to U.S. addresses only. Your order will ship within 3 business days. For more details, view our FAQ.

Quantity:Total Price = $9.99 plus shipping (U.S. Only)

If you have any problems with this purchase, please contact us for assistance by email: Support@SSRN.com or by phone: 877-SSRNHelp (877 777 6435) in the United States, or +1 585 442 8170 outside of the United States. We are open Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:30AM and 6:00PM, United States Eastern.

Proportion Dominance: The Generality and Variability of Favoring Relative Savings Over Absolute Savings

Four studies probe Ps' sensitivity to absolute and relative savings. In three studies, Ps read scenarios forcing a tradeoff of saving more lives (230 vs. 225) vs. saving a larger proportion of a population (225 ‚ 230 = 75% vs. 230 ‚ 920 = 25%). Ps' preferences were driven by both absolute and relative savings. Maximizing relative savings, called ‘‘proportion dominance’’ (PD), at the expense of absolute savings is non-normative, and most participants concur with this argument upon reflection (Studies 2 and 3). PD is related to individual differences, such that people scored as ‘‘rational’’ thinkers exhibited less PD than people scored as ‘‘experiential’’ thinkers (Studies 1 and 3). Finally, a fourth study extends these results, finding proportion dominance in other domains using a different paradigm. These four studies demonstrate both the generality (across domains and paradigms) and the variability (inter- and intraindividual) of proportion dominance.